If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Anderlith

Let me put this another way maybe? It's all about relative competence

Cop = NPC townguard
Average Soldier (after maybe one tour in war) or a well decorated cop = What I'd like to see as the basis for a level one character
Special Forces = 4e's level of competency of a level one character

I want my player's to feel mortal & like something mundane can kill them. It makes them act realistically to the world & to act a lot smarter about fighting foes.

Guards in 4e could probably beat an equal number of level 1-2 adventurers, assuming they don't burn up all their dailies.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Menteith

Then why not just remove Encumbrance from the game?

Rather than have twist realism into a horrible knot to justify an unrealistic mechanic, just don't model it at all in the core rules. If they take the time to model how much a typical human can carry, it's sort of weird that they're use such arbitrary numbers (not just for carrying capacity, for weapon weight and other aspects as well). They could just say "what a character can carry should be kept reasonable, and the DM may rule that a heavily overburdened character has Disadvantage under certain physical checks". Giving out precise rules for it which are silly from a realism standpoint doesn't make sense to me, as it's grating to people who care about logistics in game (as the numbers are weird) and the exact same to people who don't care (as they'll do their own thing anyway).

Not wanting exacting detail of every pound carried is not the same thing as not concerned about it at all. The rules should be enough to explain that a character cannot carry 5 great axes, 4 great swords, 3 suits of platemail, 2 chests of goldpieces, and a partridge in a pear tree. It's not necessary to account for every pound, how it's carried, where it's carried, how easy or difficult it is to reach a specific item, etc. For those who want such exacting detail an optional rules supplement module is fine. We can both have our way.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Zeful

...valid point about this being a fantasy rpg...

How about this then for a simple formula. 10x Str to encumber. That number x Str bonus (min 2)= Max lift.
So at Str 10, encumbrance at 100 lbs, lift 200. At Str 3, encumbered at 30, Max 60. At Str 20, encumbered at 200, Max 1000.

I think this particular issue is important, especially because it is the only quantitative tie to ability scores.

I'd rather see the formula as Str x 5 for encumbered, and Str bonus x 2 (min 2).

That means encumbered characters all over the place, yes, but they should be. I can see a trained person moving pretty well with armor and gear, but the guy next to him in shorts and a t shirt is going to move better.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Anderlith

I don't like this way of thinking, you are limiting my playstyle by making adventurers as exceptional people off the bat, instead of having them grow into their abilities. If you start out low the only way you can go is up. If you feel like your characters should be stronger/tougher etc, then maybe there will be a module to buff up their HP gains & such. It's harder to nerf than it is to buff.

This is my sentiment exactly. Don't like low level play? Play higher level. Just let us low level crew have a game, too.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Grundy

How about this then for a simple formula. 10x Str to encumber. That number x Str bonus (min 2)= Max lift.
So at Str 10, encumbrance at 100 lbs, lift 200. At Str 3, encumbered at 30, Max 60. At Str 20, encumbered at 200, Max 1000.

I think this particular issue is important, especially because it is the only quantitative tie to ability scores.

I'd rather see the formula as Str x 5 for encumbered, and Str bonus x 2 (min 2).

That means encumbered characters all over the place, yes, but they should be. I can see a trained person moving pretty well with armor and gear, but the guy next to him in shorts and a t shirt is going to move better.

I don't really mind either way, I'm just explaining my point of view as to why they're changing it.

Though in the future, when cutting down a post to note continuity of discussion, can you toss some kind of brackets around your summary so you identify it's not a direct quote? I actually had to link back to the post to realize you weren't directly quoting me, and was referring to the content of my post (<> and {} are unused grammatically, so those would be preferable to [] which is generally used to point out or correct errors in a text).

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Grundy

How about this then for a simple formula. 10x Str to encumber. That number x Str bonus (min 2)= Max lift.
So at Str 10, encumbrance at 100 lbs, lift 200. At Str 3, encumbered at 30, Max 60. At Str 20, encumbered at 200, Max 1000.

I think this particular issue is important, especially because it is the only quantitative tie to ability scores.

I'd rather see the formula as Str x 5 for encumbered, and Str bonus x 2 (min 2).

That means encumbered characters all over the place, yes, but they should be. I can see a trained person moving pretty well with armor and gear, but the guy next to him in shorts and a t shirt is going to move better.

I like it. It's simple, it gets the same range across well, and if you let the attributes scale above 20 (another DDN design decision I am very opposed to) it lets strength scale very quickly. Maybe make it strx5 for max before encumbered, strx10 for max encumbered, and multiply by str bonus for max lift.

The numbers fit reasonably well for the 10-20 range within human capability. The encumbered numbers are reasonable enough; a little more lenient than 3e. The encumbrance values don't scale as quickly past that as it does in 3e, but by the time you get to those strength values it doesn't matter much anyway since you do have extra-dimensional space.

On the other hand, the max lift keeps up nicely, and something equally simple like a x3 multiplier can be added for max push/drag, which means high strength characters still have something to add to exploration, namely the ability to easily move around extremely large things.

If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Zeful

I don't really mind either way, I'm just explaining my point of view as to why they're changing it.

Though in the future, when cutting down a post to note continuity of discussion, can you toss some kind of brackets around your summary so you identify it's not a direct quote? I actually had to link back to the post to realize you weren't directly quoting me, and was referring to the content of my post (<> and {} are unused grammatically, so those would be preferable to [] which is generally used to point out or correct errors in a text).

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Seerow

I like it. It's simple, it gets the same range across well, and if you let the attributes scale above 20 (another DDN design decision I am very opposed to) it lets strength scale very quickly. Maybe make it strx5 for max before encumbered, strx10 for max encumbered, and multiply by str bonus for max lift.

The numbers fit reasonably well for the 10-20 range within human capability. The encumbered numbers are reasonable enough; a little more lenient than 3e. The encumbrance values don't scale as quickly past that as it does in 3e, but by the time you get to those strength values it doesn't matter much anyway since you do have extra-dimensional space.

On the other hand, the max lift keeps up nicely, and something equally simple like a x3 multiplier can be added for max push/drag, which means high strength characters still have something to add to exploration, namely the ability to easily move around extremely large things.

There you go. Lets shoot it over to wotc as a freebie;). I'll have to save this for home brew in case wizards doesn't fix it.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Anderlith

Let me put this another way maybe? It's all about relative competence

Cop = NPC townguard
Average Soldier (after maybe one tour in war) or a well decorated cop = What I'd like to see as the basis for a level one character
Special Forces = 4e's level of competency of a level one character

I want my player's to feel mortal & like something mundane can kill them. It makes them act realistically to the world & to act a lot smarter about fighting foes.

That sounds fine. My problem is with the idea that low level characters should be afraid of everything because they have so few hit points. Even a low-level character should not be seriously threatened by a giant rat...that's like your soldier coming back from a tour in war and getting killed by a corgi! I'm not a skilled combatant by any means but I'm fairly certain that it'd take a large number of corgis to seriously injure me unless there were some pretty extreme circumstances.

Spoiler

Show

The disease that rats may be carrying, however, is an entirely different matter.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Seerow

I like it. It's simple, it gets the same range across well, and if you let the attributes scale above 20 (another DDN design decision I am very opposed to) it lets strength scale very quickly. Maybe make it strx5 for max before encumbered, strx10 for max encumbered, and multiply by str bonus for max lift.

The numbers fit reasonably well for the 10-20 range within human capability. The encumbered numbers are reasonable enough; a little more lenient than 3e. The encumbrance values don't scale as quickly past that as it does in 3e, but by the time you get to those strength values it doesn't matter much anyway since you do have extra-dimensional space.

On the other hand, the max lift keeps up nicely, and something equally simple like a x3 multiplier can be added for max push/drag, which means high strength characters still have something to add to exploration, namely the ability to easily move around extremely large things.

But see, even that is more than most people are going to care about. A simple multiplication is easier to remember and apply in practice, and having the numbers be somewhat high means that they won't come up unless the player tries to do something absurd, which is also good.

If you make the fairly restrictive by default, then players might feel like they need to follow those rules even if they don't really want to. I had a similar experience with the 3.5 rules. Our group tried to follow them, which always involved looking up the rules every few minutes and lots of time wasted trying to figure out who could carry how much and how encumbered they were and so on and so forth. I'd far prefer a system that is very simple, easy to remember, and not too intrusive to playing the game.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Oh, but it can be much easier. For example, every item is either small or big; just mark the big ones with a * in the equipment list. You can carry an unlimited amount of small items (subject to DM veto if you try something really silly), and you can carry an amount of big items equal to your strength modifier. Done.

This means that not everybody is going to carry a tent, rope-and-grapple, and so forth, but that's not basic equipment anyway. I find the notion rather silly that every adventurer would always carry "a mirror, crowbar, rope, grappling hook, lantern, waterskin, tent".

Most people are going to ignore encumbrance rules anyway. That means that (if they still do the "module" thing that we've seen no sign of in playtest) encumbrance should be an optional module. However, for the sake of people that like encumbrance rules, this module should then make sense; otherwise there's no point in having it.

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Most people are going to ignore encumbrance rules anyway. That means that (if they still do the "module" thing that we've seen no sign of in playtest) encumbrance should be an optional module. However, for the sake of people that like encumbrance rules, this module should then make sense; otherwise there's no point in having it.

In my experience, encumbrance is hand-waved most of the time, but invoked under special circumstances. Nobody's gona care about that Bobs character put three flasks of lamp oil in his backpack, but if he tries something like this "So, there are three suits of Fullplate in the Armory, you say? Great and stuff them into my backpack and..." the likely response of the DM is something along the lines of "Hold on a second. They don't fit into your backpack. Besides, what's your carrying capacity?"

So, uhm.. I agree that if there are rules for encumbrance at all, they should make at least a bit of sense.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Even a low-level character should not be seriously threatened by a giant rat...that's like your soldier coming back from a tour in war and getting killed by a corgi

Actually, according to the d20 srd, a dire rat grows to about 4 feet long and weighs over 50 pounds. And that's listed as a smal l creature. In the D&D Next packet, it's listed as a medium sized creature. So it's really more like you getting killed by an average sized pit bull (30-60 pounds). One thing that I think makes D&D's fragile characters so odd to so people is that we're generally very well protected against the dangers nature poses to us on a day to day basis. Nature is vicious and will kill you without remorse given the opportunity, and there are a number of small things, smaller than corgis, which will lay down even the strongest of men without modern medical attention.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Actually, according to the d20 srd, a dire rat grows to about 4 feet long and weighs over 50 pounds. And that's listed as a smal l creature. In the D&D Next packet, it's listed as a medium sized creature. So it's really more like you getting killed by an average sized pit bull (30-60 pounds).

The thing about this is that it is more like getting killed by an average sized pit bull while armed and armored, except for instead of being a predatory pack hunter it is instead an over sized scavenger. A pit bull attack is a scary dangerous thing when you're wearing normal clothing and have a pocket knife at best. When you're carting a sword around and are armored from head to toe it's not nearly as much of a problem.

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Nature is vicious and will kill you without remorse given the opportunity, and there are a number of small things, smaller than corgis, which will lay down even the strongest of men without modern medical attention.

These almost universally do this with either poison or disease. Given the extent to which D&D healing magic vastly exceeds modern medical attention in basically every respect, disease is generally not a concern, and neither are relatively slow acting poisons.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Actually, according to the d20 srd, a dire rat grows to about 4 feet long and weighs over 50 pounds. And that's listed as a smal l creature. In the D&D Next packet, it's listed as a medium sized creature. So it's really more like you getting killed by an average sized pit bull (30-60 pounds). One thing that I think makes D&D's fragile characters so odd to so people is that we're generally very well protected against the dangers nature poses to us on a day to day basis. Nature is vicious and will kill you without remorse given the opportunity, and there are a number of small things, smaller than corgis, which will lay down even the strongest of men without modern medical attention.

It is my belief that a particularly determined grey squirrel could take down the average American. (Specifically because I'm not familiar with other people, just my neighbours and classmates.)

Originally Posted by Knaight

The thing about this is that it is more like getting killed by an average sized pit bull while armed and armored, except for instead of being a predatory pack hunter it is instead an over sized scavenger. A pit bull attack is a scary dangerous thing when you're wearing normal clothing and have a pocket knife at best. When you're carting a sword around and are armored from head to toe it's not nearly as much of a problem.

Well, if you're armed and armoured and well-rested, sure, that dire rat isn't particularly threatening. If you're not well-trained with that weapon (low levels or nonproficient) or already exhausted (low hit points), then it's not that much of a stretch to have a dire rat or a large dog take down an armed man. And most characters don't wear full plate, so you can't assume most characters will be armoured "from head to toe".

Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-09-23 at 09:50 AM.

Jude P.

Playing Pokémon X and αS
3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Well, if you're armed and armoured and well-rested, sure, that dire rat isn't particularly threatening. If you're not well-trained with that weapon (low levels or nonproficient) or already exhausted (low hit points), then it's not that much of a stretch to have a dire rat or a large dog take down an armed man. And most characters don't wear full plate, so you can't assume most characters will be armoured "from head to toe".

Full plate isn't necessary. If you look at the stuff dog trainers use to get attacked in, it's basically a heavy gambeson, heavy pants and a helmet. In short, it is the equivalent of padded armor to use D&D terms, which is about as light as it gets. As for weapon training, you're essentially guaranteed to have a major reach advantage regardless, while up against something used to fighting other quadrupeds with teeth and claws and not bipeds with legitimate weapons. An ROUS is probably not an issue.

That's not to say that animals shouldn't be dangerous, but that the wrong animals currently are. It's one thing to be seriously threatened by a bear, or by most decently sized water animals while in the water, or a pack of wolves, and another entirely to be threatened by a rat.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Knaight

Full plate isn't necessary. If you look at the stuff dog trainers use to get attacked in, it's basically a heavy gambeson, heavy pants and a helmet. In short, it is the equivalent of padded armor to use D&D terms, which is about as light as it gets. As for weapon training, you're essentially guaranteed to have a major reach advantage regardless, while up against something used to fighting other quadrupeds with teeth and claws and not bipeds with legitimate weapons. An ROUS is probably not an issue.

Precisely.

And, again, even 1st-level adventurers are trained with a basic proficiency in whatever weapon they wield - sword or spell. They are not utter noobs, not commoners, and should not be threatened by vermin. The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Cornfields and Cottontails.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by ghost_warlock

Precisely.

And, again, even 1st-level adventurers are trained with a basic proficiency in whatever weapon they wield - sword or spell. They are not utter noobs, not commoners, and should not be threatened by vermin. The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Cornfields and Cottontails.

So the point is mostly that dire rats (and other low-level critters) are undersized and underpowered for the level of scary they're described as being (by fluff and CR).
What if they were four feet at the shoulder?

Jude P.

Playing Pokémon X and αS
3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I think the main question is not of how "weak" first-level characters should be, but rather whether players should have the expectation that every combat is a level-appropriate challenge that they can be expected to defeat with a certain resource expenditure.

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

I think the main question is not of how "weak" first-level characters should be, but rather whether players should have the expectation that every combat is a level-appropriate challenge that they can be expected to defeat with a certain resource expenditure.

You can't have it both ways, though. From the DM side of the screen, I can either (1) have a set of useful guidelines which will tell me what a good challenge for my party should be, or (2) not have one. Given a choice as a DM between having useful guidelines and not having them, I'd rather have them every time.

I agree the expectation should not be there on the player side, but rules-savvy players will know it's there.

From there, it's a matter of DM style; my players know that not every fight in my 4e game will be beatable, even though 4e has a very accurate system for setting "level-appropriate" challenges. The difference is that I know which are which.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I think this is an important point that Obryn is making; my issues with 3.5's CR system was that it was often comparing apples to oranges in terms of difficulty. There's already a bunch of random chance in the game thanks to using a d20 to accomplish most any action; don't compound the problem by allowing that "luck" to determine whether a player lives or dies (thanks to, for example, a lucky critical hit by a level 1 orc for 2d4+4 x 2 damage).

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

When you're carting a sword around and are armored from head to toe it's not nearly as much of a problem

It's a good thing then, that a single dire rat isn't much of a problem for an adventurer either. With a mere 5hp and a 13 AC, it's likely to go down in one or two rounds at most. And with a mere +2 to attack, doesn't have a gat chance of getting through all but the weakest of armors with any frequency. Even the unarmored elf wizard has an even 50/50 chance of being hit.

Now a pack of dire rats, well that's another story. The again, a pack of pit bulls is too.

and another entirely to be threatened by a rat.

Again though, 4' 50lb rat, not your average US house pet.

They are not utter noobs, not commoners, and should not be threatened by vermin. The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Cornfields and Cottontails.

A 50lb rat is not mere vermin though. If you walked into your house and saw a 4 foot long 50 pound rat, you'd run screaming for the hills.

I should also mention in general, something in regards to the dangers posed by a dire rats teeth. Rodent teeth in general, are very shap, more so than your dogs. A standard hamster can gnaw its way through metal if given time (I should know, mine did), now imagine that sort of shap teeth, made bigger, and given the strength of a 50 lb animal's jaw.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Ashdate

I think this is an important point that Obryn is making; my issues with 3.5's CR system was that it was often comparing apples to oranges in terms of difficulty. There's already a bunch of random chance in the game thanks to using a d20 to accomplish most any action; don't compound the problem by allowing that "luck" to determine whether a player lives or dies (thanks to, for example, a lucky critical hit by a level 1 orc for 2d4+4 x 2 damage).

As a DM I've had terrible luck with monsters pulled from WotC's Monster Manuals. They're either too weak for their CR and the party kills everything with hardly any damage taken at all, or they're way too strong for their CR and the party dies.
So now I don't use printed materials as much. (When I use a DM screen and they can't see my dice, I lie a little bit, but then I'm still not using the printed monsters, I'm making up fair numbers.)
I don't think that's what any business wants to have happen, because then I'm less likely to purchase the splatbooks or later editions' manuals.

Edit:

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

A 50lb rat is not mere vermin though. If you walked into your house and saw a 4 foot long 50 pound rat, you'd run screaming for the hills.

I should also mention in general, something in regards to the dangers posed by a dire rats teeth. Rodent teeth in general, are very shap, more so than your dogs. A standard hamster can gnaw its way through metal if given time (I should know, mine did), now imagine that sort of shap teeth, made bigger, and given the strength of a 50 lb animal's jaw.

Personally I'd grab the axe from the side of the door and charge, because [expletive], that's my house, get the [expletive] out, you [expletive] rat!
But then I doubt most people keep an axe by the door like I do.

Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-09-23 at 12:19 PM.

Jude P.

Playing Pokémon X and αS
3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by noparlpf

As a DM I've had terrible luck with monsters pulled from WotC's Monster Manuals. They're either too weak for their CR and the party kills everything with hardly any damage taken at all, or they're way too strong for their CR and the party dies.
So now I don't use printed materials as much. (When I use a DM screen and they can't see my dice, I lie a little bit, but then I'm still not using the printed monsters, I'm making up fair numbers.)
I don't think that's what any business wants to have happen, because then I'm less likely to purchase the splatbooks or later editions' manuals.

There are a few things I won't mind or want from 3.5E, building encounters is NOt one of them. They need to burn all that material and forget that it ever existed when compared to 4E. That is one of the best features of 4E over 3.5 in my personal opinion.

About the rat...

I know personally I will grab some form of a stick (broom, base ball bat, my walking cane, etc) and proceed to kill the thing.

If there were multiple rats, then I would be closing the door and seeking for help. One? I think I could take it.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Dublock

There are a few things I won't mind or want from 3.5E, building encounters is NOt one of them. They need to burn all that material and forget that it ever existed when compared to 4E. That is one of the best features of 4E over 3.5 in my personal opinion.

The 3.X CR system was completely broken. Instead of ignoring it, they should learn from it as a bad example.

About the rat...

I know personally I will grab some form of a stick (broom, base ball bat, my walking cane, etc) and proceed to kill the thing.

If there were multiple rats, then I would be closing the door and seeking for help. One? I think I could take it.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

It's not that the CR system is broken. It's just that a huge number of creatures has completely wrong numbers assigned.

“Hither came Conan the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet.”

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Yora

It's not that the CR system is broken. It's just that a huge number of creatures has completely wrong numbers assigned.

The CR system was broken, as the number CR didn't actually mean anything, it's just an arbitrary assignment of how tough monster feels. At the core of the d20 system is a lot of math, which the CR system ignores. There's no indication or rules for how much health, AC, or damage a creature should have at different levels, every monster is just placed where they feel right.

If CR meant something, we would have never seen the giant crabs at CR 3

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

50lb rat is not mere vermin though. If you walked into your house and saw a 4 foot long 50 pound rat, you'd run screaming for the hills.

I grew up in the rural midwest U.S. I've been clearing rats that size out of the corn crib since I was 12 years old. Obviously, a giant rat is an appropriate encounter for an adolescent commoner, not a 1st-level adventurer.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by TheOOB

The CR system was broken, as the number CR didn't actually mean anything, it's just an arbitrary assignment of how tough monster feels. At the core of the d20 system is a lot of math, which the CR system ignores. There's no indication or rules for how much health, AC, or damage a creature should have at different levels, every monster is just placed where they feel right.

If CR meant something, we would have never seen the giant crabs at CR 3

That's largely because 3.x didn't have a robust mathematical "spine" like 4e did, instead relying on its class/level system to try and build monsters in PC-like fashions.

With 4e, I know (for example) that a monster should have (Level +5) attacks vs. AC and do an average of (Level + 8) damage. You can still break the system by doing stuff like giving at-will stuns or whatever, but the math is directly related to creature stats. On the other hand, I could throw a high Strength, Natural Armor, or Con at a 3e monster, have it mess up balance, and leave the CR unaffected.